As I’ve said so many times in the past, this blog has provided much stimulating thought and debate. The level of commentary at differrent times has been stimulating, insightful, and provocative. Sometimes my own assumptions have been challenged (thankfully).
One such commentator, Logan46, recently took me to task for decrying President Obama’s handling of the economy. The implication was that a majority of the debt is the result of Bush 43′s fault. There is some truth to this. This assertion required some thought, hence your humble correspondent decided to do some research.
Please direct your attention to this graph:
Source: Heritage Foundation
Though I was against several of W’s domestic policies (Medicare Part D, No Child’s Behind Left Alone, the Dep’t of Homeland Fondling), the fact remains that the annual budget deficits that were run up during his administration were very manageable. Minute even, at least in comparison to what we are presently experiencing. In fact, they were smaller as a percentage of the GDP than the deficits run up under the Reagan administration. The only excption being the last year in which W foolishly importuned upon the Congress to pass the Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP), which added $750 billion to the deficit. (Supposedly, the majority of this money has been payed back to the Treasury so it should be a wash.)
There’s much that’s arguable about this entire debate. I’m certainly in the traditionalist/libertarian camp, the one that thinks we should go back to a strict-constructionist form of governance in which the national government is thousands of times smaller than what obtains at present. Regardless, please note the stark differences: the Obama White House projects $1 trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, whereas deficit spending was never more than $400 billion during the Bush years. And this mind you, during the most intense fighting in Iraq. Frightening.